With UN chief panjandrum Ban-ki (Barking at the) Moon threatening members of his audience with the prospect of ‘oblivion’ if they did not willingly place the noose of forced CO2 reductions around their necks, voices of opposition are being raised, if not, thanks to the Green Salemites, in Bali itself.Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
Dec. 13, 2007
His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon
Secretary-General, United Nations
New York, N.Y.
Dear Mr. Secretary-General,
Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction.
It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.
The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-lineby Âgovernment Ârepresentatives. The great Âmajority of IPCC contributors and Âreviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.
Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:
z Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.
z The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.
z Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today’s computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.
In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is “settled,” significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see reference) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.
The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the “precautionary principle” because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.
The current UN focus on “fighting climate change,” as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme’s Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems.
Yours faithfully,
Embarassingly, it also appears that the somewhat unsual recent melting of Greenland ice may have been due to naughty old Mother Nature, not evil capitalist man.
Perhaps we should levy a tax on her, too!
{ 24 comments }
An impressive list of signatories, especially when you consider the number of climatology specialists.
Evidence does not deter the global warming crowd. Nor does a list of dissenters. Dissent is viewed in the same light as denying the holocaust. Global warming is the new religion.
It also serves as a handy excuse to grab power. This is what Al Gore and his fellow “watermelons” are really after. Scare the masses and the elites can get away with perpetrating any fraud imaginable, including the notion that governments can change the weather.
ok!!
ç”µåŠ çƒå™¨
Heroes, Sean? Really?
This is an eclectic group (weighted towards social sciences and others outside of climate science) but still more like a bunch of grumpy emerituses who have been wrong time and again over the past thirty years (and don`t even agree with each other) but now wish to assert relevance by reluctantly conceding that change is in the cards and arguing that, given our long delay, sunk costs in current infrastructure and long lead times to change changes, our best course is to simply start getting ready for the ride. Well, if even these folks think we need to start getting ready, then perhaps even the most skeptical should admit some slight concern. (I note that climate science “skeptics” John Christy and Pat Michaels didn`t sign on; can you guess why?)
- Our most respected scientific bodies have been stating unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and that human economic activity is a significant factor. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which in 2005 the White House called “the gold standard of objective scientific assessment,” issued a joint statement with 10 other National Academies of Science saying “the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.” (Joint Statement of Science Academies: Global Response to Climate Change [PDF], 2005); http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
I know; they and all of the other scientists who participated in the IPCC process are all hysterical misanthropes, whom freedom-loving rationalists can sweep away, in favor of this hero`s lot, who are now clearly changing tactics to argue adaptation instead of mitigation. (The lack of stomach in this second group is enough to make one wonder whether we might be better off without ALL scientists, isn`t it?)
- You and others are good at pointing out evil and rent-seeking motives on the part of everyone you disagree with – practically everyone now, it seems – but do you ever to trouble to notice how you`re being played by this letter?
Like a string of others (this is the fourth in the past five years), it was started in Canada, organized and pushed by smooth PR professionals via a sophisticated vehicle (that are designed to provide “balance” while conducting “grassroots” campaigns) that clearly has significant backing from energy interests; this campaign differs in that it was perhaps more polished – for example, though the core signers remain the same over all four letters, this one was “by invitation only”:
http://www.nrsp.com/articles/07.12.13-open%20letter%20to%20the%20un%20secretary%20general.html
http://www.nrsp.com/articles/07.12.13-open%20letter%20signatories-independent%20experts.html
http://tinyurl.com/2fpnsg
http://www.desmogblog.com/nrsp-not-really-science-people
http://www.desmogblog.com/nrsp-controlled-by-energy-lobbyists
While energy firms have entirely legitimate interests, they too are rent-seekers and it behooves one to note that when they speak they certainly have their own interests in mind. Even more so when they try to hide who they are and pretend to be impartial, grassroots groups.
- The letter itself argues that we’d be better off adapting to/managing the effects of climate change rather than trying to prevent it. This is no slam dunk, but clearly there are more iummediate returns from investments in adaptation than in trying to mitigate future climate change. But serious standard cost-benefit analysis has clearly shifted in the past two years to the conclusion that investments in mitigation also make sense:
Nordhaus: http://www.reason.com/news/show/121926.html
http://www.desmogblog.com/research-the-new-economy-of-global-warming
Marty Weitzman: “On Modeling and Interpreting the Economics of Catastrophic Climate Change”, December 5, 2007; http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/weitzman/files/modeling.pdf
Richard Tol: “THE SOCIAL COST OF CARBON: TRENDS, OUTLIERS AND CATASTROPHES”, August 9, 2007; http://www.fnu.zmaw.de/fileadmin/fnu-files/publication/working-papers/margcostmetawp.pdf
Yohe, G.W. and R.S.J. Tol (2007), Precaution and a Dismal Theorem: Implications for Climate Policy and Climate Research, http://www.fnu.zmaw.de/fileadmin/fnu-files/publication/working-papers/dismaltheoremwp.pdf.
Regards,
Tom
I`m getting tired of what I see as the Mises blog fundamentally counterproductive approach to this and related topics – which surely will NOT go away until some sort of management regimes are extended to important global and regional open-access “commons”.
I`ve put a few further thoughts up here:
http://mises.com/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/12/15/quot-heroic-quot-expert-voices-proven-wrong-on-agw-make-another-slick-cry-for-relevance-at-bali.aspx
I and I would venture others who participate in the Mises Blog, object to the perversion of reason-based discourse and truth that has been fostered by an alliance of rent-seeking politicians, court “intellectuals†(including many natural scientists), bureaucrats, statist businessmen, and others. The tactics of many involved in the AGW debate is a recent example of a trend that has been poisoning objective research in the social sciences and humanities for well over one hundred years and is now doing the same in the natural sciences.
The treatment that was accorded individuals such as Harry Elmer Barnes, Charles Callan Tansill, Garet Garrett, John T. Flynn, Frank Chodorov, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Friedrich von Hayek and others by the academic/political/media establishments is eerily similar to that accorded those who question the AGW consensus. While the Mises Institute and other organizations have performed outstanding, if not heroic, work to help reverse the general intellectual decline, what Barnes referred to as the “historical blackout†continues in the social sciences and humanities and has spread significantly into the natural sciences.
Unfortunately, in much of the academic/intellectual and media worlds statism and the revolt against reason advance, and in some instances in goose step fashion.
Good job Sean. “Heroes” is exactly the right word.
Re the link to the article about heat from magma being responsible for melting Greenland’s ice.
The fact that they have discovered the earth’s crust is thinner in some places, thereby exposing certain areas of the planet to warmer temperatures and possibly causing ice melt, should sound the alarm that we have not exhausted all possible avenues of exploration as to what may be causing variations in climate.
If varying thicknesses in the Earth’s crust are part of the problem–a problem, I might add, that we can’t do much about–then why are we throwing all our financial eggs into the CO2 basket?
BTW, would someone please be kind enough to explain to me the use of the term “watermelon” and its relationship towards those who support global warming? Thanks!
IHMO,
The term “watermelon” is used by some to describe an individual that is allegedly green (environmentally friendly) on the outside, but red (socialist), on the inside. As to its relationship to global warming, I believe that you can make the inference.
IMHO:
Further to Dennis, in other words, “watermelon” is a venerable ad hominem here, useful for Miseseans to put fingers in their ears and dismiss what practically everyone who disagrees with them on climate change – from our national academies of science on down – has to say.
The trick is to first dismiss the evil “enviros” – you know, that class of rent-seekers that Rothbard and others tell us were created when statist corporations managed to subvert common law protections against polution damage to property – by focussing on their efforts to use the state to control corprations, while resolutely ignoring not only corporate statism but what Austrian economics tells us about how markets and private transaction are inefficient with respect to resourcesthat are not clear owned or protected by enforceable property rights.
Then, having dismissed those wacky “watermelons”, we can simply ignore everyone else, by jeering at the enviros and thereby implicitly imputing to the whole scientific, economic, business and government community the same malevolent and stupid misanthropism.
Neat trick, isn`t it?
IOW, enviros should be burned at the stake for the heresy of trying to use the state to solve a possible problem, and everyone else, who have gullibly been corrupted by them ignored. In this way, we can cleanse the body politic and avoid serious mistakes. See?
Serious people know that only irreproachable commentators like Dr. Reisman get to suggest that we use the state to address possible climate change:
http://blog.mises.org/archives/006389.asp
IMHO, as for Greenland, excellent observations and questions, which naturally follow from Sean Corrigan`s suggestion that the “somewhat unsual recent melting of Greenland ice” is due to “naughty old Mother Nature, not evil capitalist man”.
But since I`m not a rational thinker but an evil enviro, let me point out a few things:
- the article that Sean links to provides no shred of cover for his speculation. Greenland is
huge, with ice miles deep in the middle, and the area identified is in the extreme NE section.
- Perhaps – just perhaps, mind you – the “somewhat unsual recent melting of Greenland ice” MIGHT be due to the fact that air temperatures over the Greenland ice sheet have increased by about seven degrees Fahrenheit since 1991?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211233433.htm
But I hope you will be careful – like Sean – not to let pesky little speculative “scientific” details like this distract you from the REAL truth, which clear-headed Austrian thinking allows us to unerringly see. [I have chosen the dark path; please don`t follow me!]
Any more questions?
Tom
should sound the alarm that we have not exhausted all possible avenues of exploration as to what may be causing variations in climate.
Tom,
For the record, I was only attempting to explain to IMHO the meaning of the word. I do not think that I have personaly used the term in any comments. While “watermelon” may apply to some, I do not believe that the ad hominem approach from any of the sides to this or other issues lends much constructive to the discussion.
Did someone say ‘stake’?
I’ll prepare the pyre!
Anyway, thanks for explaining the term Dennis.
Did someone say ‘stake’?
I’ll prepare the pyre!
Good boy, Inquisitor!
Now, we just need Sean, a “neopyrrho” or somesuch to light the fire, and we can neatly cleanse the world of misanthropic scum!
Enviro-haters, unite!
TT
Miseans and lovers of reason and liberty everywhere, get your holiday joy here: Watermelons roasting on an open pyre!
http://mises.com/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/12/17/holiday-joy-quot-watermelons-quot-roasting-on-an-open-pyre.aspx
Dennis, don’t be such a straight-laced party poop. I know you love reason just as much as Sean and the rest of us. A little ad hom never did any harm, did it?
TT
In the contest of externalities, I would take the potential and far from conclusive externalities attributed to AGW than the certain and spiralling externalities that government intervention entails.
This makes me unreasonable?
TT, I do hope you realize I was posting in jest. All the more so given my newly assumed screen name, it fit in well with it.
Inquisitor, of course I realize you were posting in jest.
So was I, but with a very serious point. But of course I deserve to be on the butt end of eliminationist “funning”, because I’m an irrational misanthrope.
TT
Daniel: “In the contest of externalities, I would take the potential and far from conclusive externalities attributed to AGW than the certain and spiralling externalities that government intervention entails.”
Yes, that makes you unreasonable, Daniel. Those of us who are unwilling to submit to State control of our lives to reverse AGW are obviously in denial. There is no way to mitigate the effects of global warming that doesn’t involve being told by government what type of car to drive or how we are allowed to generate power for our homes. It matters naught whether or not we agree that AGW exists. Our mere resistance to State control brands us as unreasonable.
Daniel and Ron, spare me the pity party.
Daniel, you have the making of a good argument, based on genuine past experience. Support it, while dealing rationally with objections and I have no problems. What is unreasonable are a number of things that I keep pointing.
Ron, your strawmen are unreasonable. One may oppose “State control of our lives” (viz., mitigation measures) while still acknowledging AGW, on the basis of a judgment of moral principles and cost v. benefit. Or one can argue that no action is needed, yet, or one can simply wave away all those who disagree with you as irrational, dishonest or both. Obviously there is a wide range of possible mitigation measures, including many voluntary ones (including carbon trades) already underway that do not require “being told by government” what to do.
Of course your mere resistance to State control does not brand you as unreasonable; it is one’s inability to rationally deal with the arguments and evidence presented by others that is the hallmark of unreasonability. And surely precisely THAT which, along with a broad streak of hyperventilation and ill-tempered bloviation, which is so in evidence on so many Mises threads addressing issues that are easily understood as struggles over shared resources with ill-defined property rights (and an ancillary struggle over use of the state by competing rent-seekers), and which is obviously a surrender of reason.
TT
I was being somewhat facetious in my rant, Tom. I’m not typically one to be so bombastic. The truth is that I haven’t yet formed an opinion on AGW. The evidence is still too far from conclusive on either side, and I’m not educated enough in the relevant sciences to be able to come to a conclusion myself. At the moment, at least, I’m pretty much on the fence, though I lean more toward the opinion that GW may be occurring, but as a natural phenomenon that would occur regardless of human activity.
Regardless, I do object being constantly told that I’m in denial for not acknowledging AGW and acquiescing to the necessity of government control “fix it”. I realize that you’re not a complete government control advocate, Tom, though many of your suggested solutions involve government coercion. Your proposals regarding the internalization of costs imposed by externalities are not without merit, but you advocate its imposition on a national/global scale, which by its very nature MUST be enforced through government coercion. The State(s) decide how much damage has been done and to whom, then milks taxpayers for funds to offset the effects of their environmentally-insensitive activities. This is somehow supposed to discourage such activities and encourage more environmentally-friendly uses of energy. If I’ve got it wrong, please correct me.
I agree with what Inquisitor (the Austrian formerly known as “Anthony”) said in a related blog post: “Austrians researching market environmentalism ought to act as though AGW were true, and submit proposals as to how the market may react, then.” I have no problem whatsoever with voluntary, non-coercive solutions to AGW, whether it is real or not. I simply object to the command-and-control mindset of most environmentalists. If you feel bad about the costs being imposed elsewhere in the world by your own activities (such as driving to work, turning on your lights, or using your computer), feel free to send them a check. Use only energy-saving devices in your home. Put solar panels on your roof. Don’t buy products made by companies that pollute the environment. By all means do whatever you feel is necessary within your own sphere of influence to soften your impact on the world, but please don’t suggest that I and the rest of us need to be coerced into it because we’ve “put our fingers in our ears.”
I take at least partial credit/blame for coining the term “watermelon,” as I had not run across it elsewhere (though it’s such an obvious metaphor that I won’t be surprised to find that someone else beat me to the punch.
Anyway, to see it on full display, here is one Ross Gelbspan, not on how to turn back global warming but on what to do now that we are “Beyond the Point of No Return”:
“The only antidote to [the community of multinational corporations seizing on the coming catastrophes to elbow aside governments as agents of rescue and reconstruction] is a revitalization of government — an elevation of public mission above private interest and an end to the free-market fundamentalism that has blinded much of the American public with its mindless belief in the divine power of markets.”
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/10/165845/92
That’s right, this clown, in keeping with an environmental community that is incapable of distinguishing crony capitalism (fascism) from the free market, wants to solve a problem that he admits can’t be solved with “an elevation of public mission above private interest” — i.e., world socialism — that accordingly puts an end to free enterprise and thus to civilization as we know it.
Now THAT is “green on the outside but red on the inside.”
I as well as my friends appeared to be analyzing the great helpful tips located on the blog and then unexpectedly got a terrible suspicion I had not expressed respect to the web site owner for those secrets
Comments on this entry are closed.